Mamola vs. Shen

were due. Section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants a plaintiff the right to file an amended complaint in response to a demurrer and/or motion to strike directed at the original complaint, if filed and served by the date for filing an opposition brief.

As such, the filing of the amended complaint renders both the demurrer and the motion to strike moot since the original Complaint has been superseded and the FAC is now the operative pleading. (See, e.g., State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [“Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”]; JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [“the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint”].)

Plaintiffs to give notice.

14 Mamola vs. Shen Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Joinder

The court DENIES Defendants LIHUA SHEN and JUN WANG’S motion for judgment on the pleadings and DENIES the joinder filed by Defendants HOME SERVICE, INC dba SPECTRUM REALTY; KAI YAN KUANG (Doe 1); and LAN GAO (Doe 2).

Defendants move pursuant to Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure, governing motions for judgment on the pleadings. Like a demurrer, a motion for judgment ton the pleadings attacks defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed. (Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1173- 1174.)

As explained below, like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be filed late in a case. Here, trial is days away, and Defendants’ deadline to

file a motion for judgment on the pleadings passed long ago.

As the court stated previously, Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure states inter alia,

“No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 438(e). See also 8/2/26 Minute Order.)

Here, the court issued its pretrial order on 3/11/24 and the initial trial date was 11/10/25. (See 3/11/24 Minute Order.) The instant motion was not filed until 6/11/26, well after the deadline described in Section 438.

In sum, the motion and joiner are DENIED.

Moving Defendants to give notice.

15 Zhang vs. Chen Motion for Summary Judgment

The court DENIES the motion filed by Cross-Defendants CH MARKET CENTER, INC., d/b/a KW VISION (“KW Vision”) and YUANYUAN SAI, aka OLIVIA SAI (“Sai”) for summary judgment of the First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) filed by Cross-Complainants AMIR NATHAN DAWOOD and SANDY DAWOOD (the “Dawoods”).

RJN: Although unnecessary, the court GRANTS the Dawoods’ request to take judicial notice of the court’s 3/8/24 Minute Order.

The FAXC alleges the following causes of action against Defendants and Cross-Defendants ZHENJIAN CHEN (default entered), XIAOYU WANG (voluntarily dismissed), Sai, LIANG GUO (voluntarily dismissed), Thomas J. Blank aka Tom Blank, Worldwide Signings, Inc. (WS), and ASHANTI N. CLAR and KW Vision:

15